Talk:Foundations of Physics

Comments based on "From the editor"

Is it worth putting in some discussion of the "From the editor" piece on the website? "There are controversies, differences of opinion, and sometimes even religious feelings which come into play. These should be discussed openly." and "Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything." are somewhat unusual positions for the editor of a journal to take! Djr32 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this unusual? The journal's scope is to discuss at length issues of the foundations of physics, these can become philosophical at times. Additionally, it is implicit in most peer-reviewed journal policies that publication does not imply solely positive reviews. Ofter an editor will act as the tiebreaker when a negative and positive review are received. Hence, saying acceptance of a paper does not mean that all reviewers agree is in fact a very plain statement applicable to any journal. It would appear 't Hooft is just emphasizing the openness of his journal to discussions. Evilmathninja (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial claims

I cleaned up the controversial claims section the other day so that the letter published by the editor corresponded to the papers submited to the journal. If other controversial claims need to be listed, they need to be cited. We can't just list a bunch of papers that have been submitted with controversial topics and then make a claim that the journal wishes it didn't do it. Akuvar (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How reliable is this paper?

You probably can't answer this question, but I want to cite an article from this journal in the draft of an article.

I am a scientific skeptic who is using the concept of telepathy to highlight the profound nature of Bell's theorem in Draft:Bell's theorem paradox. My disbelief in telepathy is essentially a faith in the open-mindedness of a sufficient fraction of the scientific community to investigate and corroborate any claim of that such abilities among humans can be established. Having said that, Bell's theorem does establish that elementary particles are capable of what Wikipedia (correctly) calls Quantum pseudo-telepathy (although workers in the field often call it simply pseudo-telepathy).

This is an extremely difficult topic for me to research for a Wikipedia article because the number of websites (i.e. "noise") that support a non-scientific approach to telepathy outnumbers the number that support the scientific consensus (which Wikipedia does and should recognize) In my literature search, I uncovered,

Josephson, Brian D., and Fotini Pallikari-Viras. "Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality." Foundations of Physics 21.2 (1991): 197-207.

I am an equation person and have little patience for long articles about something I already understand, but this sentence seems to summarize their attitude:

Experiments on certain unusual human abilities^(7-8) suggest that the nonlocal effects do not invariably disappear under averaging, a result that the present paper seeks to explain.

The authors reference: (7) H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer, and J. H. Rush, Foundations of Parapsychology (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986), and (8) D. I. Radin and R. D. Nelson, "Evidence for consciousness-related anoalies in random physical systems," Found. Phys. 19, 1499-1514 (1989).

--Yours truly Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC) (chief editor of Wikiversity:Second Journal of Science)